United States

Department of

Agriculture

Rural Business–

and Cooperative

Programs

Research

Report 222

Cooperative Financial

Profile, 2008
Abstract A 2008 survey of 2,473 U.S. farmer, rancher, and fishery cooperatives was conducted

to examine their financial characteristics. The 1,164 respondents provided information

on how they distributed their net income or losses, source of borrowed funds, and the

composition of their equity capital. Common-size balance sheets and income statements and financial ratio analysis are used to compare responses between cooperatives. Additionally, the responses were grouped into eight cooperative types based on

products sold or marketed and into seven asset sizes. 

Keywords: cooperatives, financial profile, balance sheet, capital, common-size

income statement, common-size balance sheet, ratio analysis.

Cooperative Financial Profile, 2008

E. Eldon Eversull

Rural Development

U.S. Department of Agriculture

STOP 3256

1400 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, DC 20250-3256

Research Report 222

June 2011
Preface This report presents the 2008 financial profile of 1,164 U.S. farmer, rancher, and fishery cooperatives and compared these responses with those given in prior surveys.

Results are also presented by type and cooperative size based on eight marketing,

service, and supply classifications, and seven different asset sizes. Results are also

given by State with information representing cooperatives based in 36 States. 

This report continues the series of cooperative financial profiles that have previously

been compiled in 1997, 1987, 1976, 1970, 1962, and 1954. The same survey results

were also used for another recently published report: Cooperative Equity Redemption,

RD Research Report 220. 

The information provided in this report should act as a guide for cooperative managers

and boards of directors in comparing their financial composition with cooperatives of

similar type, size, and location. The author thanks the cooperatives that participated in

this study and Roger Wissman, retired USDA Rural Development agricultural economist, for reviewing the survey instrument and a draft of this report.

i
ii
iii

Contents Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Comparisons to Previous Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Long-term Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Sources of Equity Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Distribution of Net Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Sources of Borrowed Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Survey Respondents, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Distribution of Net Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Per-Unit Capital Retains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Sources of Borrowed Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Common-Size Balance Sheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Common-Size Income Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Ratio Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
iv
v

Highlights Almost 1,200 U.S. farmer, rancher, and fishery cooperatives provided information

about their financial structure in this study, continuing a long tradition for this data

series. Survey highlights include the following:

l Equity capital financed 57 percent of cooperative assets in 1954 but dropped to

32 percent in 2008. Use of equity capital especially dropped from 1962 to 1970

and then again from 1997 to 2008.

l Cash patronage rose from 31 percent of net income or losses in 1954 to 41 percent in 1970 but has since steadily declined, to 27 percent in 2008. Unallocated

distribution of net income and losses has increased from 6 percent in 1954 to 30

percent in 2008.

l CoBank provides about 64 percent of all cooperative borrowed funds. This is

about a 10- percentage point increase over levels achieved in both 1997 and

1987.

l Only 83 respondents reported losses in 2008. Two cooperatives charged losses

to qualified noncash patronage refund accounts and 81 distributed the losses to

retained earnings. 

l More farm supply cooperatives borrow from commercial banks than borrow from

CoBank in terms of borrowings, however, four times as much funding originates

from CoBank as from commercial banks. Farm supply cooperatives also often

borrow from another cooperative or from a financial subsidiary of another cooperative.

l Current liabilities as a percent of total assets tend to grow as cooperative size

increases. Long-term liabilities fluctuate across cooperative sizes, but the smallest cooperatives had the lowest percentage, while the largest cooperatives have

the most long-term liabilities, percentage wise.

l With smaller amounts of liabilities, smaller cooperatives also have more equity.

The smallest cooperatives have 66 percent of their assets financed by equity

accounts, while the amount for the very largest cooperatives is 29 percent. The

smallest cooperatives also have the most allocated equity (46 percent).
vi
Cooperative Financial Profile, 2008

E. Eldon Eversull

Rural Development

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Cooperatives are businesses owned by their

member users and, as such, modify their financial

structure over time to successfully compete in U.S. and

international markets. USDA Rural Development has

periodically documented the financial profile of

farmer, rancher, and fishery cooperatives over the past

half century. This report continues the series that

began in 1954, with updates in 1962, 1970, 1976, 1987,

and 1997. This report will show how cooperatives have

changed their financial structure by analyzing: sources

of capital; distribution of net income and net losses;

and changes over time to their financial measures. This

report will also analyze cooperative financial structure

in the current survey year by the use of common-size

income statements and balance sheets and ratio analysis.

Cooperative managers, directors, educators, and

researchers will be provided information in this report

on how cooperatives are financed and how their financial structure has evolved over time. 

Comparisons to Previous Studies

This study differs somewhat from earlier studies

in that information will be provided by State and

somewhat different cooperative sizes and types will be

used. Information and methodology in this study

closely follows a previous cooperative equity redemption report [Eversull] which drew on the same survey

results. 

Varying sizes were used in prior studies based on

total assets. This study will use seven asset sizes, the

same ones used in the cooperative equity redemption

study: <$1 million in assets; $1 million to $2.49 million;

$2.5 million to $4.99 million; $5 million to $9.99 million; $10 million to $19.99 million; $20 million to $49.99

million; and $50 million and over.

Each year, USDA's Cooperative Programs (CP)

conducts an annual survey of cooperatives. This survey has shown that cooperatives are merging with

other cooperatives, resulting in fewer but larger cooperatives [DeVille, et al]. With fewer cooperatives,

analysis by cooperative type has been reduced from 13

cooperative types used in 1997 to the present 8 types.

Cooperative types used are the same as used in the

equity redemption study, as follows: cotton and cotton

gin; dairy; fruit, vegetable, and nut; livestock, poultry,

and wool; other marketing; service; grain and oilseed;

and farm supply. 

Grain and oilseed and farm supply cooperatives

are the predominate responders to this report,

accounting for 31 percent and 44 percent respectively,

or 75 percent of all respondents. Grain and oilseed and

farm supply cooperatives also have similar operations

in that most sell some farm supplies, while many farm

supply cooperatives also market some grain. But the

largest size respondents to this survey are not grain

and oilseed or farm supply cooperatives. Reported

results thus do not necessarily correspond to the most

numerous respondents. The location of respondents by

State and region is given in Appendix Table 1.

Long-Term Trends

Over the past half century, the number of cooperatives has dropped from more than 10,000 to just over

2,400 (Figure 1). During this same time period, total

assets in 2008 are more than 13 times larger than cooperative asset levels of 1954 (Appendix Table 2).

1
Percentage wise, assets grew the most between 1970

and 1976; by dollar amount, the most rapid growth

was between 1997 and 2008. Respondents to this survey represent a large proportion of total cooperatives

surveyed by Rural Development, as their asset level of

$48.2 billion in 2008 represents more than 78 percent of

total cooperative assets [$61.2 billion, DeVille, et al].

Funding Sources

Funding sources consist of (1) equity capital, (2)

borrowed funds, and (3) other liabilities. Equity capital

is primarily derived from net income and is influenced

by decisions made by the board of directors on distribution of net income, equity redemption, and use of

debt or equity to finance assets. 

Borrowed funds come from CoBank (prior studies refer to Bank for Cooperatives, which was part of

the Farm Credit System; mergers of banks for cooperatives reduced the number of these banks to one surviving bank in 1999—CoBank), commercial banks, bonds

and notes issued by the cooperative, loans from other

cooperatives or their financial subsidiaries, and other

sources and lenders.

Other liabilities are obligations due suppliers,

members, and others. Obligations due suppliers are

dependent on the type of business a cooperative conducts. Dairy marketing cooperatives have fairly steady

business throughout the year, so they have about the

same funding obligations to suppliers (raw milk payments to members). Farm supply cooperatives have a

more cyclical payment process to suppliers of seed,

fertilizer, and crop protectants, so these cooperatives

usually have higher obligations due suppliers in late

winter and early spring as inventories are built up.

In 1954 and 1962, equity capital financed 57 percent of cooperative assets (Figure 2). Equity levels

declined through 1976 but increased from 1970 levels

to 1987. They dropped in 1997 and 2008, when only 32

percent of assets were funded by equity. Borrowed

funding as a percent of total assets reached a high of

33 percent in both 1970 and 1976, only to fall below 30

percent in 1987 and 1997. Borrowed funding rose

above 31 percent again in 2008.

There has been a steady increase in the use of

other liabilities to finance assets. Other liabilities have

risen from 18 percent in 1954 to 37 percent in 2008.

Sources of Equity Capital

User-owners finance their cooperatives through

the accumulation of equity capital via direct investment, patronage refunds, and per-unit retains. Without

equity accumulation, a cooperative cannot grow. To

maintain investment proportionality among current

and past users,

equity redemption

is used by most

cooperatives.

Direct investment in a cooperative is usually

through the purchase of an ownership share or

shares. Preferred

stock may also be

used. Patronage

refunds are net

income allocated to

a patron based on

the quantity or

value of business

conducted with the

cooperative. Perunit retains are not

based on net

income, but rather

2

1954 1962 1970 1976 1987 1997 2008

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Billion dollars

Assets

Cooperatives

Number of

cooperatives

Figure 1—Number of Cooperatives and Their Total Assets, by

Fiscal Year
on the amount of products sold through the cooperative or business conducted. Marketing agreements

with members or bylaw provisions establish the

authority for the cooperative to deduct per-unit retains

from product payments.

Allocating net income and redeeming equity are

unique practices of cooperatives. The bylaws of the

cooperative govern its net income allocation and equity redemption. The cooperative's board of directors is

responsible for determining the allocation of net

income and equity redemption. Capital accumulation

is the result of net income allocation and equity

redemption. 

Distribution of Net Income

Distribution of net income provides equity accumulation through noncash patronage refunds and

unallocated accounts. Distribution of net income is

shown in Figure 3 and in Appendix Table 3. For most

of the survey years, cash and noncash patronage

refunds comprise the majority of net income distribution. Cash patronage of 31 percent of net income or

losses in 1954 rose to 41 percent in 1970, but has since

steadily declined, to 27 percent in 2008. Noncash

patronage refunds have declined overall from 56 percent in 1954 to 31 percent in 2008, with increases to at

least 43 percent in both 1976 and 1997. Unallocated

distribution of net

income or losses has

increased from 6 percent

in 1954 to 30 percent in

2008.

In 1987 and 2008

surveys, unallocated distribution of net income

(retained earnings) was

equal to or larger than

the distribution for cash

patronage and noncash

patronage. There were

large losses in both 1986

and 2007 followed by

large growth of income

the following years.

Some of the growth in

retained earnings in 1987

and 2008 could be to offset losses charged against

retained earnings in the

prior years.

Sources of Borrowed Funds

CoBank is the main source of borrowed funds for

cooperatives (Figure 4 and Appendix Table 4). CoBank

is the surviving bank for cooperatives after a series of

mergers among cooperative banks that are a part of

the Federal Farm Credit System. CoBank and its predecessors provided more than 64 percent of all cooperative borrowed funds in 1970 and still provide about

the same percentage in 2008.

In 1954 through 1976, bonds and notes issued by

cooperatives were the second highest source of borrowed funds. About 37 percent of borrowed funds in

1954 were from bonds and notes, but this funding

source has fallen steadily, to only 8 percent of borrowed funds in 2008.

Commercial banks provided about 8 percent of

borrowed funds in 1954 through 1987, but borrowing

from commercial banks grew to 16 percent in both

1997 and 2008. The final source of borrowed funds is a

catch-all “other” category. “Other” consists mainly of

loans from other cooperatives or their financial subsidiaries, equipment dealers, the Small Business

Administration, industrial revenue bonds, certificates

of debt, and Commodity Credit Corporation. Overall,

other source of borrowed funds has fluctuated from 9

percent in 1954 to 26 percent in 1987, dropping back

down to 12 percent in 2008.

3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1954 1962 1970 1976 1987 1997 2008

Percent

Equity capital

Borrowed funds

Other Liabilities

Figure 2—Cooperatives’ Funding Sources by Fiscal Year
Survey

Respondents,

2008

There were

1,164 respondents to

the 2008 financial

profile survey. These

cooperatives represent about 64 percent of sales and 78

percent of assets of

all cooperatives that

CP surveys. The distribution of respondents by total asset

size is shown in figure 5. About onethird of cooperatives

are in the $5 million

to $9.99 million, and

$10 million to $19.99

size groupings. 

By cooperative type,

most of the respondents are either

grain and oilseed or

farm supply cooperatives (Figure 6). 

Respondents'

percentage of total

assets and total

sales is presented in

Table 1. The largest

size grouping, with

assets over $50 million, dominates the

category, accounting

for 78 percent of the

assets and sales.

Even though grain

and oilseed and

farm supply cooperatives are the most

numerous respondents, there are

some large dairy

respondents, as

indicated by 59

cooperatives having

4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1954 1962 1970 1976 1987 1997 2008

Figure 3—Distribution of Net Income, by Fiscal Year

Percent

Dividends 

Cash patronage 

Noncash patronage 

Unallocated

Income taxes

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1954 1962 1970 1976 1987 1997 2008

Figure 4—Sources of Borrowed Funds, by Fiscal Year

Percent

CoBank and Bank for Cooperatives

Bonds and notes 

Commercial banks 

Other 

Figure 3 — Distribution of Net Income, by Fiscal Year

Figure 4 — Distribution of Borrowed Funds, by Fiscal Year
21 percent of the

assets and 30 percent of sales.

Distribution of

Net Income

Distribution of

net income in Table

2 includes more

equity accounts or

distribution methods than those

shown in Figure 3

from the previous

section. The survey

included both qualified and nonqualified equity accounts

for distribution of

net income; differentiation between

qualified and nonqualified distributions were not

included in prior

studies. With qualified noncash

refunds, the patron

is taxed in the year

received, while the

cooperative deducts

the entire qualified

noncash refund

from expenses in the

year the funds are

earned. For nonqualified noncash

refunds, the cooperative pays taxes on

the nonqualified

noncash refunds in

the year the funds

are earned. The

patron is not taxed

on nonqualified

refunds until a later

time, when the nonqualified noncash

refunds are

redeemed. The

patron then treats

this as income in the

5

Figure 5—Distribution of Cooperatives by Total Assets, 2008

107

152

178

203 200

161 163

0

50

100

150

200

250

< $1 $1 to

$2.49 

$2.5 to

$4.99 

$5 to

$9.99 

$10 to

$19.99

$20 to

$49.99

≥ $50 

Number of cooperatives

(millions)

Figure 6—Distribution of Cooperatives by Type, 2008

68 59 60

23 40 42

362

510

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Cotton &

cotton gins

Dairy Fruit,

vegetable, &

nut

Livestock,

poultry, 

& wool

Other

marketing

Service Grain &

oilseed

Farm supply

Number of cooperatives

Figure 6 — Distribution of Cooperatives by Type, 2008

Figure 5—Distribution of Cooperatives by Total Assets, 2008
year the cash is received (for a complete discussion of

cooperative income distribution and tax treatment, see

Frederick, Tax Treatment of Cooperatives).

In this study, 25 cooperatives had no income to

distribute (Appendix Table 5). About half of these

cooperatives were small. One-third were fruit, vegetable, and nut cooperatives.

The majority of net income distributions are to

retained earnings, qualified cash patronage refunds,

and qualified noncash patronage refunds. Each of

these accounts received at least 26 percent of the total

distribution in 2008. All sizes of cooperatives paid a

cash dividend of 1 percent or less. Qualified cash

patronage refunds, at 45 percent, were largest for

cooperatives with $1 million to $2.49 million in assets.

Qualified noncash patronage refunds were between 24

percent and 36 percent for all sizes. Smaller to mid-size

cooperatives issue larger proportions of qualified noncash patronage refunds. Nonqualified noncash patronage refunds were used the most by the largest and

smallest cooperatives. Higher retained earnings generally means higher taxes are paid.

There is substantial variation in distribution of

net income among different cooperative types, but

there are very few responses for some categories.

Dairy cooperatives had a cash dividend over 4 percent,

based on only 4 responses. Qualified cash patronage

refunds ranged from 63 percent for fruit, vegetable,

and nut cooperatives to 17 percent for farm supply.

Qualified noncash patronage refunds were the highest

for livestock, poultry, and wool cooperatives (75 percent, but based on only 5 responses) while fruit, vegetable, and nut (4 percent) were the lowest. The negative 30-percent income tax (refund) was due to a large

tax refund by one livestock, poultry, and wool cooperative.

With grain and oilseed and farm supply cooperatives comprising 31 percent and 44 percent, respectively, of all respondents, there are sufficient responses to

analyze these two types separately. On average, more

than 48 percent of net income of grain and oilseed

cooperatives is distributed as qualified cash and noncash patronage refunds. Another 38 percent was kept

as retained earnings in 2008 (Appendix Table 7). Farm

supply cooperatives also kept 38 percent as retained

earnings and had cash patronage refunds of 17 percent. But, they had lower qualified noncash patronage

refunds and higher income taxes (24 percent and 20

percent, respectively, Appendix Table 8). 

Grain and oilseed and farm supply cooperatives

distributed net income similarly; both had: more than

80 percent of the cooperatives using qualified cash

patronage refunds; 76 percent using qualified noncash

6

Table 1—Respondent cooperatives' percent of total sales and total assets by size and type, 2008

Total asset

size and Percent of Percent of

cooperative type Respondents total assets1 total sales1

Number Percent

< $1 million 107 0.10 0.23

$1 mill. to $2.49 mill. 152 0.55 0.82

$2.5 mill. to $4.99 mill. 178 1.35 1.48

$5 mill. to $9.99 mill. 203 3.11 3.47

$10 mill. to $19.99 mill. 200 5.91 5.90

$20 mill. to $49.99 mill. 161 10.87 10.47

≥ $50 million ____________________________________________________________________ 163 78.09 77.64

1,164 100.00 100.00

Cotton and cotton gin 68 4.07 3.04

Dairy 59 20.79 30.42

Fruit, vegetable, and nut 60 6.17 5.02

Livestock, poultry, and wool 23 0.68 1.32

Other marketing 51 11.86 8.34

Service 31 0.35 0.01

Grain and oilseed 362 29.63 24.99

Farm supply ____________________________________________________________________ 510 26.45 26.86

1,164 100.00 100.00

1 Based on total assets of $48.2 billion and total sales of $119.9 billion. 
7

Table 2—Distribution of net income1 by cooperative size and type, 2008Total asset Qualified Qualified Nonqualified Retainedsize and Cash cash noncash noncash earnings Incomecooperative type dividend refund refund refund (unallocated) tax

Percent

< $1 million 0.28 25.56 24.92 2.60 40.14 6.50

$1 mill. to $2.49 mill. 0.35 44.72 30.04 1.53 17.55 5.82

$2.5 mill. to $4.99 mill. 0.25 33.92 31.75 1.79 25.33 6.97

$5 mill. to $9.99 mill. 0.07 32.80 32.98 0.85 23.87 9.43

$10 mill. to $19.99 mill. 0.30 26.79 36.42 1.94 23.55 11.00

$20 mill. to $49.99 mill. 0.06 25.07 29.50 0.41 30.55 14.41

≥ $50 million 1.05 27.85 23.93 2.53 32.87 11.76

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Weighted average 0.81 27.94 26.14 2.14 31.22 11.74

Cotton and cotton gin 0.09 51.49 35.60 1.26 9.64 1.91

Dairy 4.09 20.89 44.40 1.83 21.87 6.92

Fruit, vegetable, and nut 2.22 62.57 4.13 6.08 22.13 2.87

Livestock, poultry, and wool 0.28 35.43 74.53 0.06 19.66 -29.96

Other marketing 0.00 32.26 25.17 2.02 34.11 6.44

Service 0.00 45.91 27.71 0.77 17.36 8.24

Grain and oilseed 0.05 18.36 30.35 1.03 38.16 12.04

Farm supply 0.09 17.17 23.73 1.79 37.62 19.60

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Weighted average 0.81 27.94 26.14 2.14 31.22 11.74

1 Based on net income of $3.8 billion.2 Other marketing cooperatives are comprised of: Tobacco, 3; Dry beans and peas, 6; Rice, 3; Sugar, 10; Fish, 10; and Other marketing, 8. 
patronage refunds; and over 98 percent using retained

earnings. Over 92 percent paid income taxes on net

income. 

Percent distribution of net income by State is

given in Appendix Table 9. There are some differences

in how cooperatives in different States distribute net

income. For instance, qualified cash patronage refunds

by State is probably influenced by the number of grain

and oilseed, farm supply, and dairy cooperatives that

pay lower amounts of qualified cash patronage

refunds rather than a location difference. In Appendix

Table 10, the number of cooperatives distributing net

income by State shows that 36 Illinois cooperatives

paid a cash dividend, something that is not apparent if

only the percent distribution in Appendix Table 9 is

considered. 

In this study, 83 cooperatives had losses. Most

cooperatives charge losses to retained earnings instead

of passing on the loss to members' equity accounts

(Appendix Tables 11 and 12). The survey reveals that

81 cooperatives charged losses to retained earnings

while 2 cooperatives charged losses to qualified noncash patronage refund accounts. One dairy and one

fruit/vegetable/nut cooperative passed the loss on to

members through an assessment and by lowering allocated equity accounts.

Patronage refunds and cash dividends were paid

by several grain and oilseed and farm supply cooperatives that suffered overall losses. Without knowing the

specifics, it is surmised that at least one business center of these cooperatives had a profit while the cooperative had an overall loss. For example, the petroleum

business center of the cooperative might have had a

profit and thus paid patronage refunds while other

business centers had losses that caused the cooperative

to have an overall loss. 

Per-Unit Capital Retains

Cooperatives accumulate equity by noncash

refunds, retained earnings, and per-unit retains. Perunit retains are a direct investment by members. The

retains are deducted either as an amount per quantity

of product delivered or as a percentage of the value of

the product marketed. Marketing agreements with

members or bylaw provisions establish the authority

for the cooperative to deduct per-unit retains from

product payments.

Qualified per-unit retains, at $90 million, were

highest for the very largest cooperatives (Table 3).

Nonqualified per-unit retains were also used the most

by the largest cooperatives, with nine using them to

deduct $39 million. Per-unit capital retains were used

by 43 cooperatives (3 cooperatives used both qualified

and nonqualified per-unit capital retains) which was

just over half of the respondents that reported doing so

in the 1997 study (83 cooperatives).

Dairy cooperatives deducted the largest amount

of qualified per-unit capital retains ($40 million) while

other marketing cooperatives had $30 million. Fruit,

vegetable, and nut cooperatives deducted at $21 million, the largest amount of nonqualified per-unit capital retains.

Sources of Borrowed Funds

In the previous long-term analysis section,

sources of borrowed funds were limited to CoBank,

bonds and notes, commercial banks, and “other.” For

the “other” category, respondents supplied the source

of borrowed funds by writing down a source(s) on the

survey. Also, other sources were found in annual

reports included with the returned surveys, which

were supplied by 82 percent of respondents. With

many additional sources of funds supplied by respondents and found in annual reports, the “other” category was expanded, and additional detail on borrowed

funds is given in table 4. CoBank is by far the largest

source of borrowed funds, with a weighted average of

62 percent. By size though, cooperatives with assets

less than $5 million obtain almost half of their borrowed funds from commercial banks. 

When looking at the number of respondents

using each source (Appendix Table 13), some of the

other sources of borrowed funds take on more important roles. Equipment dealers provide less than 2 percent of funds, but more than 10 percent of the respondents received financing from this source. Another

cooperative or cooperative financial subsidiary and

“other” sources provide less than 10 percent of funding. But, more than 10 percent of the respondents used

these sources.

Cotton and cotton gins obtained 42 percent of

their borrowed funds from the Commodity Credit

Corporation (CCC, mainly cotton stored under loan at

cotton cooperatives). Other marketing cooperatives

obtained 12 percent of their borrowed funds from

CCC, where “other” was sugar and rice marketing

cooperatives. Commercial banks provided 80 percent

of borrowed funds for service cooperatives and more

than 25 percent for other marketing; cotton and cotton

gin; and fruit, vegetable, and nut cooperatives. Bonds

and notes were used for at least 12 percent of borrowed funds for dairy; fruit, vegetable, and nut; live8
9

stock, poultry, and wool; and other marketing cooperatives, but fewer than 10 cooperatives of these types

used bonds and notes. 

Grain and oilseed cooperatives borrowed about

16 percentage points more of their funds from CoBank

than the other types of cooperatives while borrowing

about 5 points less from commercial banks (Appendix

Table 14). Smaller grain and oilseed cooperatives used

commercial banks more than larger grain cooperatives, as was found with other smaller cooperatives. 

More farm supply cooperatives borrow from

commercial banks (170) than borrow from CoBank

(166, Appendix Table 15). In terms of borrowing however, four times as much funding originates from

CoBank as from commercial banks. More farm supply

cooperatives than any other type borrow from another

cooperative or a financial subsidiary of another cooperative. Many farm supply and grain and oilseed

cooperatives purchase their farm supplies and sell

their grain through other cooperatives. These other

cooperatives are federated cooperatives that have farm

supply and grain and oilseed cooperatives as members

(owners) and, as owners, receive patronage refunds

from the federated cooperatives based on farm supplies purchased or grain marketed through the federated cooperative. Additionally, the federated cooperative can be a source of borrowed funds for its

owner/member local farm supply and grain and

oilseed cooperatives.

By State, it would appear that commercial banks

are major sources of funds in Florida and Georgia,

Maryland, North Carolina, and Hawaii (Appendix

Table 16), until the number of cooperatives using these

funds is understood to be small, as seen in Appendix

Table 17. Cooperatives from Iowa, Illinois, Missouri,

Kansas, and Nebraska receive the majority of their

borrowings from CoBank, and these States also have a

large amount of respondents. Although accounting for

less than 6 percent of the total borrowings in

Minnesota, 26 cooperatives received funding from

another cooperative or the financial subsidiary of

another cooperative and 29 received funds from

“other” sources. 

Common-Size Balance Sheets1

Common-size balance sheets present all accounts

as a percent of total assets, which allows for comparison between different sizes and types of cooperatives.

Current assets range from 59 percent of total assets to

67 percent by cooperative size (Appendix table 18).

Table 3—Per-unit capital retains deducted by cooperative size and type, 2008

Deducting Deducting

Total asset qualified nonqualified Qualified Nonqualified

size and per-unit per-unit per-unit per-unit

cooperative type Total capital retains capital retains retains retains

Number Million $

< $1 million 107 1 0 0.1 0.0

$1 mill. to $2.49 mill. 152 0 0 0.0 0.0

$2.5 mill. to $4.99 mill. 178 3 1 0.4 0.1

$5 mill. to $9.99 mill. 203 6 1 2.6 0.2

$10 mill. to $19.99 mill. 200 5 2 3.3 1.4

$20 mill. to $49.99 mill. 161 4 1 1.5 0.9

≥ $50 million 163 13 9 90.2 38.5 _______________________________________________________________

Total 1,164 32 14 98.1 41.1

Cotton and cotton gin 68 1 0 3.2 0.0

Dairy 59 5 2 40.4 5.7

Fruit, vegetable, and nut 60 10 5 5.5 20.6

Livestock, poultry, and wool 23 1 0 0.3 0.0

Other marketing 40 4 1 30.3 9.6

Service 42 1 0 15.6 0.0

Grain and oilseed 362 3 1 0.5 1.6

Farm supply ______________________________________________________________ 510 7 5 2.4 3.6

Total 1,164 32 14 98.1 41.1

1 For a more complete description of balance sheet and income

statement accounts, see DeVille, et al.
10 Table 4—Source of borrowed funds1 by cooperative size and type, 2008

Small Commodity

Total asset Bonds Farm Equip- Business Industrial Certifi- Credit Anothersize and Commercial and Credit Grain ment Admin- revenue cates of Corp co-op orcooperative type CoBank Banks notes System Contracts dealers istration bonds debt oration subsidiary Other

Percent

< $1 million 26.54 54.18 1.40 5.46 0.00 0.19 3.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.76 7.63

$1 mill. to $2.49 mill. 13.85 57.01 6.29 8.55 0.00 2.18 1.35 0.00 0.04 0.00 7.52 3.22

$2.5 mill. to $4.99 mill. 25.10 43.11 1.12 9.35 1.42 2.11 5.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.08 5.60

$5 mill. to $9.99 mill. 48.68 28.09 4.18 3.06 0.00 1.63 1.40 0.00 0.15 0.00 6.27 6.55

$10 mill. to $19.99 mill. 52.94 24.01 5.08 3.95 0.77 1.33 0.69 0.36 0.00 0.00 7.80 3.06

$20 mill. to $49.99 mill. 58.47 19.75 2.23 3.07 0.31 1.57 0.25 0.42 0.09 0.11 13.38 0.35

≥ $50 million 63.29 14.44 8.68 1.72 0.19 1.47 0.02 1.08 0.07 4.75 1.96 2.32

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Weighted average 61.51 16.14 7.58 2.09 0.24 1.49 0.15 0.93 0.07 3.81 3.76 2.24

Cotton and cotton gin 10.31 28.09 1.65 16.98 0.00 0.09 0.40 0.00 0.00 42.05 0.30 0.12Dairy 44.00 13.15 37.39 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 1.75 0.00 0.00 0.03 3.32

Fruit, vegetable, and nut 48.15 26.09 12.74 1.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 3.35 0.00 0.00 0.13 8.44Livestock, poultry, & wool 61.36 6.10 11.68 18.55 0.00 0.30 0.00 2.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Other marketing 37.45 31.71 12.70 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 5.03 0.00 12.35 0.07 0.39Service 6.02 80.47 4.49 0.25 0.00 0.56 0.00 6.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.24Grain & oilseed 77.98 10.83 1.80 1.17 0.53 1.56 0.20 0.09 0.16 0.03 3.32 2.34Farm supply 63.16 15.83 5.42 1.12 0.01 3.00 0.12 0.25 0.00 0.00 9.43 1.67

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Weighted average 61.51 16.14 7.58 2.09 0.24 1.49 0.15 0.93 0.07 3.81 3.76 2.24

1 Based on total borrowed funds of $15.1 billion.2 Other marketing cooperatives are comprised of : Tobacco, 3; Dry beans and peas, 6; Rice, 3; Sugar, 10; Fish, 10; Other marketing, 8.
Property, plant, and equipment as a percent of total

assets ranges only 4 points, with the largest and smallest cooperatives both averaging 19 percent.

Cooperatives with $2.5 million to $4.99 million in

assets have the highest property, plant, and equipment

(23 percent of total assets). Investments in other cooperatives is the highest for smaller cooperatives and

falls to 4 percent for the largest cooperatives. 

Current liabilities as a percent of total assets tend

to grow as cooperative size increases, ranging from 30

percent to 55 percent. Long-term liabilities fluctuate

across cooperative sizes, but the smallest cooperatives

have the fewest (4 percent) while the largest cooperatives have the most long-term liabilities (18 percent).

With smaller amounts of liabilities, smaller cooperatives also have more equity. The smallest cooperatives have 66 percent of their assets financed by equity

accounts while the very largest have 29 percent. The

smallest cooperatives also have the most allocated

equity (46 percent).

Current assets as a percent of total assets is highest for cotton and cotton gin; livestock, wool, and poultry; and grain and oilseed cooperatives, with all averaging at least 75 percent (Appendix table 19). Property,

plant, and equipment is highest for service; other marketing; and fruit, vegetable, and nut cooperatives,

averaging at least 29 percent. Grain and oilseed and

farm supply cooperatives have at least 6 percent of

their assets invested in other cooperatives, while all

other types of cooperatives have 3 percent or less.

Current liabilities, at 29 percent of total assets,

are lowest for service cooperatives. Long-term liabilities are highest for dairy and fruit, vegetable, and nut

cooperatives (24 percent).

With at least 59 percent of total assets financed by

equity for service cooperatives, these cooperatives

average at least 18 points higher than any other type of

cooperative. Dairy (26 percent) and grain and oilseed

cooperatives (25 percent) have the smallest amounts of

assets financed by equity.

Common-Size Income Statements

Appendix tables 20 and 21 show common-size

income statements for the surveyed cooperatives.

Common-size income statements show each item as a

percent of total sales except for service cooperatives,

where each item is a percent of service. Cost of goods

sold, at 93 percent, is the highest for the smallest cooperatives. All other sizes of cooperatives averaged a cost

of goods sold of either 89 or 90 percent of sales.

Service and other operating income is the highest

for the smallest cooperatives, averaging 6 percent.

Service income generally decreases as cooperative size

increases, dropping to 1 percent for the largest cooperatives. 

Expenses were at least 9 percent of sales for all

cooperatives. Expenses were higher for smaller cooperatives and tended to drop as cooperative size

increased. The largest single expense is wages, averaging at least 4 percent of sales and increasing to 6 percent of sales for cooperatives with $2.5 million to $4.99

million in assets. Depreciation expenses exhibit little

range, averaging between 0.9 percent of sales for the

largest and smallest cooperatives, while $2.5 million to

$4.99 million-sized cooperatives were 1.2 percent.

Interest expenses as a percent of net sales were the

highest for the largest cooperatives but were always

less than 1 percent.

On average, all surveyed cooperatives had positive net operating margins, averaging from 1.3 percent

for the smallest cooperatives to 2.1 percent of sales for

the largest ones. Patronage income was always less

than 2 percent but was highest for cooperatives in the

$2.5 million to $4.99 million group. Taxes averaged less

than 0.5 percent of net sales for all sizes of cooperatives. Net income was 2 percent of sales for the smallest cooperatives, rose to about 4 percent for middlesized cooperatives, and then fell to 2.8 percent for the

largest cooperatives.

Cost of goods sold was the lowest for fruit, vegetable, and nut cooperatives (75 percent) and the highest for livestock, wool, and poultry cooperatives (95

percent of total sales). Service cooperatives mainly

provide services and, as such, have very few sales. The

exception in this report is artificial insemination (AI)

cooperatives that are listed as service cooperatives (following the lead of prior financial profile reports in this

series). Because AI cooperatives are listed as service

cooperatives, sales are greater than service and most of

the common-size income statement analysis looks odd

so was dropped from Appendix table 21. 

Cotton and cotton ginning cooperatives have service income of almost 6 percent of sales, as cotton ginning, storage, and handling are considered service revenue. Fruit, vegetable, and nut cooperatives have

service income of almost 3 percent of sales while dairy

cooperatives have less than 0.2 percent.

Wage expenses are more than 9 percent for fruit,

vegetable, and nut cooperatives while grain and

oilseed and livestock, poultry, and wool cooperatives

both have wage expenses averaging 3 percent or less of

sales. Depreciation is in excess of 1.7 percent of sales

for other marketing and fruit, vegetable, and nut cooperatives, but less than 1 percent for all other types of

11
cooperatives. Interest expenses are over 1 percent for

cotton and cotton gin cooperatives (1.5 percent) and

grain and oilseed cooperatives (1.3 percent).

Fruit, vegetable, and nut cooperatives, cotton and

cotton gin, other marketing, and farm supply cooperatives all had net operating margins greater than the

overall average of 2 percent. Patronage income exceeded 1 percent for only farm supply cooperatives. Fruit,

vegetable, and nut cooperatives had the highest net

income (8.3 percent), followed by cotton and cotton

gin (6.8 percent) and farm supply (3.6 percent). 

Ratio Analysis

Table 5 shows the current ratio, three equity

ratios, and an extra value index for respondent cooperatives by size. The values presented for each ratio or

index are the median, or middle, value for each cooperative size grouping. As a median value, the ratio or

index may be considered representative of the group

as a whole, with the knowledge that there are at least

100 cooperatives in every group.

The current ratio is a liquidity ratio—a measure

of the cooperative's ability to meet short-term obligations. If the ratio is less than one, current liabilities

exceed current assets and the cooperative's liquidity is

threatened. The smallest cooperative's have a ratio of

over 2, meaning the cooperative has twice as much

current assets as current liabilities so the cooperative

could easily cover current liability expenses. As cooperatives increase in size, the current ratio falls to 1.18

for the largest cooperatives.

The ratio of retained earnings to total equity

shows the use of retained earnings and allocated equity. Net income from nonmember business is the usual

source of retained earnings (unallocated equity). For

all but the smallest cooperatives, retained earnings to

total equity is greater than 30, meaning the cooperative

has about one-third of total equity comprised of

retained earnings. This ratio increases as cooperative

size increases for all but the largest cooperatives,

where it falls to 38 percent. The smallest cooperatives

have retained earnings of 13 percent relative to total

equity.

The ratio of equity-to-assets measures the use of

equity to finance the cooperative, and can be considered a measure of solvency or financial strength of the

cooperative. Smaller cooperatives are stronger financially, because they finance a larger proportion of their

assets with equity than larger ones. Their equity-toassets ratio is 81 percent while the ratio for all respondents is 42 percent. With an equity-to-assets ratio of 42,

less than half of a cooperative's assets are financed by

equity and almost 60 percent is financed by debt. The

ratio falls as cooperative size increases, with a ratio of

28 percent for the largest cooperatives.

Another measure of solvency or financial

strength is shown by the adjusted-equity-to-assets

ratio, where total equity is divided by total assets

minus current liabilities. When current liabilities are

subtracted from assets, the remainder is long-term

debt and total equity, so the ratio shows the relative

use of long-term debt and equity to finance the cooperative. A higher ratio indicates higher solvency or a

greater use of equity to finance operations. The median value for small cooperatives of 100 indicates no use

of long-term debt. The next two sizes of cooperatives

also have little long-term debt, using less than 5 percent long-term debt. As asset size increases, more

long-term debt is used.

The extra-value index (EVI) can help members

evaluate their cooperative's performance because it

provides a value for the opportunity cost of using

equity capital [Ling]. A cooperative's equity capital is

not openly traded in a stock market as is an investororiented firm, so it is hard for cooperative members to

determine if management is increasing or decreasing

the value of the cooperative. The EVI attempts to put a

value on the opportunity cost of equity capital through

the use of an interest charge on the equivalent to the

amount the money (member equity capital) could have

earned if used elsewhere. In other words, EVI evaluates cooperative performance by subtracting the

opportunity cost of equity capital from the profitability ratio.

If the EVI index is positive, cooperative management has created value for members because the cooperative's operations are covering the opportunity cost

of member's equity capital. The converse is true if the

EVI index is negative—member's investment in the

cooperative is being diminished as the opportunity

cost of member's equity capital is not being covered. 

There are three values shown for EVI in table 5.

The EVI+2 represents a basic rate by adding 200 basis

points to the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR)

12 month maturity December average. The basic

LIBOR+2 rate represented in Table 5 as EVI+2, reflects

the rate that banks in the United States might make

loans to firms with better than average credit ratings.

EVI+5 represents a moderate premium for risk or

LIBOR rate plus 500 basis points while EVI +10 is a

higher premium for risk as it is LIBOR rate plus 1000

basis points.

All EVIs are positive except the for the smallest

cooperatives with a high credit risk. Small coopera12
13

Table 5—Financial ratios by cooperative size, 2008

–––––––––––––––––––—————–––––—––—————––———-—–Asset sizes––––––——————––––––––———————————————--

$1 million to $2.5 million to $5 million to $10 million to $20 million to

Financial ratios <$1 million $2.49 million $4.99 million $9.99 million $19.99 million $49.99 million >$50 million All

Ratio or percent

Current ratio1 2.08 2.04 1.58 1.40 1.23 1.19 1.18 1.32

Retained earnings to total equity2 13.07 31.01 31.15 37.14 38.68 41.52 37.95 36.15

Equity-to-assets3 80.94 67.33 59.05 50.49 39.17 32.49 28.25 43.55Adjusted-equity-to-assets4 100.00 98.49 95.94 91.50 86.54 81.09 71.78 88.94

Extra Value Index + 25 4.10 7.89 9.94 11.79 12.16 10.76 10.94 10.39

Extra Value Index +55 1.17 5.06 7.07 9.01 9.73 8.32 8.41 7.90

Extra Value Index +105 -2.78 0.80 2.44 4.38 5.51 4.61 4.82 3.63

1 Current ratio = current assets/current liabilities, median values for each type shown.2 Retained earnings to total equity = retained earnings/total equity, median values for each type shown.3 Equity-to-assets ratio = total equity/total assets, median values for each type shown.4 Adjusted-equity-to-assets ratio = total equity/(total assets-current liabilities), median values for each type shown.5 Extra value index = net income after taxes -(total equity*(LIBOR 12 month maturity December average+X%))/(total assets-current liabilities), where X=2 is a basic premium for risk; X=5 is a

moderate level of risk; and , X=10 is a high level of risk, median values for each size shown.

Table 6—Financial ratios by cooperative type, 2008

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––——————Cooperative type–——–––——————————————————————————

Cotton and Fruit, vegetable, Livestock, wool Other Grain and

Financial ratios cotton gin Dairy and nut and poultry marketing Service oilseed Farm supply All

Ratio or percent

Current ratio1 1.37 1.31 1.35 1.17 1.34 1.67 1.19 1.48 1.32

Retained earnings to

total equity2 6.96 16.08 20.39 0.00 22.03 10.45 42.83 37.45 36.15

Equity-to-assets3 53.43 33.14 37.56 80.94 47.09 71.69 31.61 55.76 43.55

Adjusted-equity-to-assets4 86.24 94.89 86.40 100.00 88.44 99.61 80.88 94.09 88.94Extra Value Index + 25 28.08 9.18 9.58 -1.03 8.47 10.07 9.58 10.68 10.39

Extra Value Index +55 25.13 6.91 7.01 -4.03 6.72 7.13 7.30 7.94 7.90

Extra Value Index +105 20.38 2.98 3.12 -9.03 1.72 3.66 3.34 3.35 3.63

1 Current ratio = current assets/current liabilities, median values for each type shown.2 Retained earnings to total equity = retained earnings/total equity, median values for each type shown.3 Equity-to-assets ratio = total equity/total assets, median values for each type shown.4 Adjusted-equity-to-assets ratio = total equity/(total assets-current liabilities), median values for each type shown.5 Extra value index = net income after taxes -(total equity*(LIBOR 12 month maturity December average+X%))/(total assets-current liabilities), where X=2 is a basic premium for risk; X=5 is a

moderate level of risk; and , X=10 is a high level of risk, median values for each size shown.
tives financed mainly with equity have the lowest EVI.

An EVI of 4.1 for the smallest cooperatives means they

create 4.1 cents in extra value for their members for

each dollar of operating capital used. The middle-sized

cooperatives created the most extra value at the basic

and moderate levels with at least 11 cents of extra

value created at EVI +2; and 9 cents at EVI +5; but the

largest cooperatives had the highest EVI +10 (4.8

cents).

The current ratio was the highest for service

cooperatives at 1.7 (Table 6). Farm supply; cotton and

cotton gin; fruit, vegetable, and nut; and other marketing cooperatives all had a current ratio higher than the

average of 1.32. It should be noted though that only

ratios for grain and oilseed and farm supply cooperatives are probably representative of the cooperatives

by type as only these two types have more than 68

respondent cooperatives (See Table 3 for respondent

numbers).

Most of the livestock, wool, and poultry respondents have no retained earnings, so they have a

retained-earnings-to-total-equity ratio of 0. Both grain

and oilseed and farm supply cooperatives appear to

have a lot of non-member business and thus high

retained-earnings-to-total-equity ratios (43 and 37,

respectively).

The ratio of equity to assets measures the use of

equity to finance the cooperative. Farm supply respondents finance about 56 percent of assets with equity.

Grain and oilseed respondents are typically larger

cooperatives that finance less than one-third of assets

with equity. Two-thirds of their assets are financed

with debt.

Livestock, poultry, and wool cooperatives, with a

median value of 100 for the adjusted-equity-to-assets

ratio, indicates no use of long-term debt. Farm supply

cooperatives have a median ratio of 94, while grain

and oilseed cooperatives have a lower ratio of 81. 

The EVI index is positive for all risk levels and all

cooperative types except livestock, wool, and poultry

cooperatives. For the most part, these cooperatives are

small and do not have any debt.

Cotton and cotton gin cooperatives have the

highest EVI for all levels, and there were 68 respondents for this cooperative type. Grain and oilseed and

farm supply cooperatives both provide about 10 cents

extra value at an EVI +2; 8 cents of extra value at

EVI+5; and 3 cents extra value at EVI+10. 

Summary

A primary objective of this study was to document the financial profile of cooperatives and compare

this information with practices used in prior studies.

There has been a fairly steady decline in the use of

equity capital to fund assets, with equity capital falling

from 57 percent of total assets in 1954 to 32 percent in

2008. Borrowed funds have increased to 31 percent of

total assets in 2008, up from 25 percent in 1954. The

use of other liabilities to fund assets more than doubled over the same time period, with unusual growth

in 2008. Inventories and receivables had a large

increase in 2008, reflecting higher grain and oilseed

prices and higher prices of farm supplies due to

increased energy costs.

Cash patronage has fallen from 31 percent of net

income distribution in 1954 to 27 percent in 2008.

Noncash patronage also fell, from 56 percent of net

income distribution to 31 percent over the same time

period. Unallocated equity or retained earnings has

benefited from the fall in both cash and noncash

patronage, rising to 30 percent of net income distribution in 2008. It should be noted though that the majority (75 percent) of the respondents to this study were

grain and oilseed and farm supply cooperatives, cooperatives that generally have more nonmember business

and thus generate more retained earnings.

Of the 1,164 respondents, 83 had losses in 2008.

Almost all of them distributed losses to retained earnings. 

With a smaller percentage of liabilities, smaller

cooperatives also have a larger percentage of equity.

The smallest cooperatives have 66 percent of their

assets financed by equity accounts while the very

largest have 29 percent. The smallest cooperatives also

have the highest percentage allocated equity (46 percent).

Bibliography

DeVille, Katherine, Jacqueline Penn, and Eldon

Eversull, Cooperative Statistics, 2008, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Rural Development, Service Report 69,

October 2009.

Eversull, E. Eldon, Cooperative Equity Redemption,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development,

Research Report 220, June 2010.

14
15

Frederick, Donald A., Tax Treatment of Cooperatives,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Business and

Cooperative Development Service, Cooperative

Information Report 23, May 1995.

Griffin, Nelda, A Financial Profile of Farmer

Cooperatives in the United States, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Farmer Cooperative Service, Research

Report 23, October 1972.

Ling, K. Charles, Measuring Performance of Dairy

Cooperatives, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural

Development, Research Report 212, June 2006.

Rathbone, Robert C., and Roger A. Wissman, Farmer

Cooperatives' Financial Profile, 1997, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Rural Business-Cooperative Service,

Research Report 171, April 2000.

Royer, Jeffery S., Roger A. Wissman, and Charles A.

Kraenzle, Farmer Cooperatives' Financial Profile,

1987, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural

Cooperative Service, Research Report 91, September

1990.
Appendix Table 1—Cooperative respondents by region and State, 2008

Region/ 

State Respondents

Northeast Number

Maine 10

New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey 22

Pennsylvania 14

Southeast

Alabama 13

Florida, Georgia 15

Kentucky 4

Maryland 4

North Carolina 3

Tennessee 21

Virginia 10

Lake States

Michigan 26

Minnesota 129

Wisconsin 68

Corn Belt

Iowa 79

Illinois 78

Indiana 19

Missouri 40

Ohio 31

South Central

Arkansas 13

Louisiana 13

Mississippi 16

Oklahoma 32

Texas 89

Northern Plains

Kansas 67

Nebraska 41

North Dakota 101

South Dakota 51

Mountain

Colorado 16

Idaho 9

Montana 22

Utah 6

Wyoming 4

Pacific

California, Arizona, New Mexico 46

Hawaii 3

Oregon 16

Washington 33

Total 1,164

16

Appendix
Appendix Table 2—Total assets and financial structure by fiscal year, all respondents

Account 1954 1962 1970 1976 1987 1997 2008

Billion $

Total assets 3.35 5.32 8.48 18.55 27.64 36.52 48.16

Percent of Total Assets

Equity capital 57.1 57.4 46.6 41.7 46.4 40.9 31.6

Borrowed funds 24.5 22.4 32.6 33.1 26.3 29.7 31.4

Other liabilities 18.4 20.2 20.8 25.2 27.3 29.4 37.0

Appendix Table 3—Distribution of net income and net losses by fiscal year, all respondentsAccount 1954 1962 1970 1976 1987 1997 2008

Percent of Net Income or Losses

Dividends 3.6 3.8 7.0 2.1 1.5 1.5 0.8

Cash patronage 30.9 35.5 41.4 39.3 32.6 31.3 26.9

Noncash patronage 55.6 50.5 39.7 44.5 30.6 42.5 30.9

Unallocated 5.7 6.7 7.1 8.4 27.4 15.2 30.1Income taxes 4.2 3.5 4.8 5.7 7.9 9.5 11.3

Appendix Table 4—Sources of borrowed funds by fiscal year, all respondentsAccount 1954 1962 1970 1976 1987 1997 2008

Percent

CoBank 45.9 49.9 64.2 62.2 51.4 53.6 63.6

Bonds and notes 36.9 30.1 19.4 18.9 14.7 15.1 7.9

Commercial banks 8.2 8.3 8.3 9.5 8.2 15.9 16.1

Other 9.0 11.7 8.1 9.4 25.7 15.4 12.4

17
Appendix Table 5—Cooperatives with no income to distribute and no long-term debt, 2008

Cooperative size and type No income No long-term debt

Number

< $1 million 11 71

$1 million to $2.49 million 4 54

$2.5 million to $4.99 million 3 51

$5 million to $9.99 million 2 34

$10 million to $19.99 million 1 23

$20 million to $49.99 million 1 7

≥ $50 million 3 11 –––––––––––––––––––––––– Total 25 251

Cotton and cotton gin 4 9

Dairy 0 31

Fruit, vegetable, and nut 8 21

Livestock, poultry, and wool 3 15

Other marketing 3 20

Service 1 17

Grain and oilseed 3 39

Farm supply 3 99 –––––––––––––––––––––––– Total 25 251

18
Appendix Table 6—Distribution of net income by number of respondents, by cooperative size and type, 2008

Total asset Qualified Qualified Nonqualified Retained

size and Cash cash noncash noncash earnings Income

cooperative type dividend refund refund refund (unallocated) tax Total

Number

< $1 million 6 34 18 2 102 40 107

$1 mill. to $2.49 mill. 14 99 80 3 145 107 152

$2.5 mill. to $4.99 mill. 10 143 116 8 171 147 178

$5 mill. to $9.99 mill. 15 174 151 5 194 184 203

$10 mill. to $19.99 mill. 14 176 161 10 197 184 200

$20 mill. to $49.99 mill. 17 144 138 4 159 155 161

≥ $50 million 22 136 123 14 158 151 163

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Total 98 906 787 46 1,126 968 1,164

Cotton and cotton gin 6 57 41 10 55 35 68Dairy 4 39 30 2 58 34 59

Fruit, vegetable, and nut 6 34 15 5 56 33 60

Livestock, poultry, and wool 3 5 3 1 21 7 23

Other marketing1 0 18 10 1 38 25 40

Service 1 32 26 1 40 32 42

Grain and oilseed 39 297 274 7 355 335 362

Farm supply 39 424 388 19 503 467 510 ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Total 98 906 787 46 1,126 968 1,164

1 Other marketing cooperatives are comprised of : Tobacco, 3; Dry beans and peas, 6; Rice, 3; Sugar, 10; Fish, 10; and Other marketing, 8.

19
Appendix Table 7—Distribution of net income by size of grain and oilseed cooperatives and number of respondents, 2008

Qualified Qualified Nonqualified Retained

Cash cash noncash noncash earnings Income

Total asset size dividend refund refund refund (unallocated) tax Total

Percent

< $1 million 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00

$1 mill. to $2.49 mill. 0.42 32.37 37.73 0.00 24.52 4.97 100.00

$2.5 mill. to $4.99 mill. 0.14 25.56 30.80 0.44 36.48 6.59 100.00

$5 mill. to $9.99 mill. 0.15 20.08 34.45 0.00 32.26 13.06 100.00

$10 mill. to $19.99 mill. 0.13 23.96 34.91 2.68 26.74 11.58 100.00

$20 mill. to $49.99 mill. 0.07 23.05 31.51 0.29 30.59 14.48 100.00

≥ $50 million 0.02 15.39 28.79 1.09 43.36 11.36 100.00

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Weighted average 0.05 18.36 30.35 1.03 38.16 12.04 100.00

< $1 million 0 0 0 0 4 0 5

$1 mill. to $2.49 mill. 7 20 17 0 31 26 33

$2.5 mill. to $4.99 mill. 4 19 15 1 31 28 31

$5 mill. to $9.99 mill. 7 47 41 0 56 57 57

$10 mill. to $19.99 mill. 9 77 73 3 88 81 90

$20 mill. to $49.99 mill. 7 72 70 1 79 77 79

≥ $50 million 5 62 58 2 66 66 67

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Total 39 297 274 7 55 335 362

20
Appendix Table 8—Distribution of net income by size of farm supply cooperatives and number of respondents, 2008

Qualified Qualified Nonqualified Retained

Cash cash noncash noncash earnings Income

Total asset size dividend refund refund refund (unallocated) tax Total

Percent

< $1 million 0.51 13.08 29.39 1.89 50.95 4.18 100.00

$1 mill. to $2.49 mill. 0.25 25.90 34.31 0.95 28.99 9.59 100.00

$2.5 mill. to $4.99 mill. 0.02 21.06 37.88 1.41 27.56 12.07 100.00

$5 mill. to $9.99 mill. 0.07 21.82 36.79 0.84 28.45 12.02 100.00

$10 mill. to $19.99 mill. 0.06 21.88 39.32 1.16 24.30 13.29 100.00

$20 mill. to $49.99 mill. 0.06 21.06 26.08 0.00 35.38 17.42 100.00

≥ $50 million 0.11 14.97 19.07 2.36 41.35 22.13 100.00

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Weighted average 0.09 17.17 23.73 1.79 37.62 19.60 100.00

< $1 million 2 13 12 1 32 21 32

$1 mill. to $2.49 mill. 4 56 48 2 77 62 78

$2.5 mill. to $4.99 mill. 3 86 74 3 98 91 101

$5 mill. to $9.99 mill. 7 95 89 3 106 104 108

$10 mill. to $19.99 mill. 3 79 75 4 84 84 84

$20 mill. to $49.99 mill. 9 56 55 0 61 60 61

≥ $50 million 11 39 35 6 45 45 46

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Total 39 424 388 19 503 467 510

21
Appendix Table 9—Distribution of net income by percent to each account and State, 2008

Qualified Qualified Nonqualified Retained

Cash cash noncash noncash earnings Income

Region/State dividend refund refund refund (unallocated) tax Total

Percent

NortheastMaine 0.00 161.14 0.00 0.00 -61.62 0.48 100.00

New York

MassachusettsNew Jersey 2.82 74.08 4.81 7.64 9.88 0.77 100.00

Pennsylvania 3.63 28.08 14.87 16.13 36.57 0.73 100.00

Southeast

Alabama 0.00 10.32 16.26 0.00 43.36 30.05 100.00

Florida, Georgia 0.00 45.97 1.80 1.32 29.59 21.33 100.00

Kentucky 0.00 24.70 53.62 0.00 14.66 7.03 100.00

Maryland 0.00 21.39 18.11 0.00 59.76 0.74 100.00

North Carolina 0.00 47.87 23.01 0.00 13.36 15.76 100.00

Tennessee 0.06 26.80 33.96 5.82 17.91 15.44 100.00

Virginia 0.23 15.31 47.92 0.00 30.12 6.42 100.00

Lake States

Michigan 0.07 25.52 37.41 1.04 34.33 1.63 100.00

Minnesota 0.01 22.84 42.34 0.01 26.02 8.78 100.00

Wisconsin 0.48 18.91 33.94 2.08 32.15 12.45 100.00

Corn Belt

Iowa 0.01 12.28 25.11 0.69 50.34 11.58 100.00

Illinois 0.10 12.24 16.33 0.00 45.47 25.86 100.00

Indiana 0.00 27.05 12.13 0.00 44.37 16.45 100.00

Missouri 6.94 20.19 21.81 0.00 32.33 18.72 100.00

Ohio 0.19 22.72 26.99 0.00 33.32 16.78 100.00

South Central

Arkansas 0.13 56.49 10.62 0.00 19.88 12.87 100.00

Louisiana 1.68 52.29 55.43 0.00 -8.37 -1.03 100.00

Mississippi 0.12 74.73 17.49 6.13 0.90 0.63 100.00

Oklahoma 0.04 31.62 23.35 0.00 37.98 7.01 100.00

Texas 0.30 50.05 39.66 1.12 6.29 2.58 100.00

Northern Plains

Kansas 0.00 20.79 34.68 4.05 27.13 13.34 100.00

Nebraska 0.00 17.68 28.15 3.01 42.66 8.50 100.00

North Dakota 0.01 18.99 36.69 10.14 22.19 11.98 100.00

South Dakota 0.00 13.26 24.21 0.49 51.88 10.16 100.00

22
Appendix Table 9—Distribution of net income by percent to each account and State, 2008 (Continued)

Qualified Qualified Nonqualified Retained

Cash cash noncash noncash earnings Income

Region/State dividend refund refund refund (unallocated) tax Total

Percent

MountainColorado 0.00 17.16 21.08 0.00 39.67 22.09 100.00

Idaho 0.00 24.60 60.54 0.00 10.49 4.37 100.00

Montana 0.00 22.68 52.67 0.00 17.71 6.93 100.00

Utah 0.00 -128.79 -62.05 -21.46 197.03 115.28 100.00

Wyoming 0.50 22.81 36.09 0.00 27.49 13.11 100.00

Pacific

California,

Arizona,

New Mexico 0.01 40.68 13.75 0.07 39.88 5.61 100.00

Hawaii 0.00 25.81 0.00 0.00 61.08 13.11 100.00

Oregon 0.00 34.47 21.34 5.96 24.81 13.42 100.00

Washington 4.56 13.83 61.68 6.52 8.85 4.56 100.00

Weighted average 0.81 27.94 26.14 2.14 31.22 11.74 100.00

23
Appendix Table 10—Distribution of net income—number of respondents to each account by State, 2008

Qualified Qualified Nonqualified Retained

Cash cash noncash noncash earnings Income

Region State dividend refund refund refund (unallocated) tax Total

Number

NortheastMaine 0 3 0 0 10 5 10

New York

MassachusettsNew Jersey 6 15 5 1 21 10 22

Pennsylvania 2 4 2 1 14 3 14

Southeast

Alabama 1 10 7 0 12 10 13

Florida, Georgia 0 10 5 1 15 9 15

Kentucky 0 3 2 0 4 2 4

Maryland 0 2 1 0 4 1 4

North Carolina 0 1 1 0 2 1 3

Tennessee 4 14 12 1 21 17 21

Virginia 1 4 3 0 9 7 10

Lake StatesMichigan 3 16 16 2 25 17 26

Minnesota 3 105 102 1 127 114 129

Wisconsin 3 57 55 3 68 63 68

Corn Belt

Iowa 2 69 69 3 78 77 79

Illinois 36 53 42 0 77 75 78

Indiana 0 15 13 0 19 17 19

Missouri 1 32 31 0 40 36 40

Ohio 13 26 25 0 31 28 31

South Central

Arkansas 3 10 7 0 13 11 13

Louisiana 2 6 4 0 10 7 13

Mississippi 3 12 11 7 12 11 16

Oklahoma 1 27 23 0 32 31 32

Texas 2 68 50 7 80 52 89

Northern Plains

Kansas 0 62 57 3 66 66 67

Nebraska 0 37 35 2 41 41 41

North Dakota 5 89 86 2 100 93 101

South Dakota 0 41 38 1 50 41 51

24
Appendix Table 10—Distribution of net income—number of respondents to each account by State, 2008 (Continued)

Qualified Qualified Nonqualified Retained

Cash cash noncash noncash earnings Income

Total asset size dividend refund refund refund (unallocated) tax Total

Number

MountainColorado 0 13 11 0 16 16 16

Idaho 0 5 4 0 9 7 9

Montana 0 14 14 0 22 12 22

Utah 0 5 3 2 5 6 6

Wyoming 1 3 3 0 4 3 4

Pacific

California,

Arizona,

New Mexico 3 32 19 1 40 34 46

Hawaii 0 1 0 0 3 2 3

Oregon 1 14 7 4 16 14 16

Washington 2 28 24 4 30 29 33

Total 98 906 787 46 1,126 968 1,164

25
Appendix Table 11—Distribution of net income by respondents with losses, by size, 2008

Qualified Qualified Nonqualified Retained

Cash cash noncash noncash earnings Income

Total asset size dividend refund refund refund (unallocated) tax Total

Percent

< $1 million 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -100.07 0.07

$1 mill. to $2.49 mill. 0.82 0.00 -3.87 0.00 -95.08 -1.87

$2.5 mill. to $4.99 mill. 0.11 0.38 1.19 0.00 -103.35 1.67

$5 mill. to $9.99 mill. 0.24 0.00 -26.85 0.00 -70.02 -3.37

$10 mill. to $19.99 mill. 0.12 2.47 9.86 0.00 -105.16 -7.28$20 mill. to $49.99 mill. 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 -76.14 -23.90

≥ $50 million 0.00 0.55 2.21 2.51 -141.95 36.67

Weighted average 0.13 0.36 -1.10 0.46 -94.41 -5.45

Number

< $1 million 0 0 0 0 21 3 21

$1 mill. to $2.49 mill. 1 0 2 0 21 7 22

$2.5 mill. to $4.99 mill. 1 1 1 0 13 6 13

$5 mill. to $9.99 mill. 1 0 1 0 7 5 8

$10 mill. to $19.99 mill. 1 1 1 0 8 4 8$20 mill. to $49.99 mill. 1 0 0 0 8 6 8

≥ $50 million 0 1 1 1 3 2 3

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Total 5 3 6 1 81 33 83

26
Appendix Table 12—Distribution of net income by respondents with losses, by type, 2008 

Qualified Qualified Nonqualified Retained

Cash cash noncash noncash earnings Income

Cooperative type dividend refund refund refund (unallocated) tax Total

Percent

Cotton & cotton gins 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -100.00 0.00

Dairy 0.00 2.01 8.04 9.16 -205.14 85.93

Fruits, vegetables, & nuts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -100.00 0.00

Livestock, poultry, and wool 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -66.02 -33.98

Other marketing 0.00 0.00 -0.27 0.00 -109.78 10.04

Service 0.00 0.00 -96.88 0.00 -3.12 0.01

Grain & oilseed 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 -95.63 -4.53

Farm supply 0.46 1.10 3.15 0.00 -100.10 -4.62

Weighted average 0.13 0.36 -1.10 0.46 -94.41 -5.45

Number

Cotton & cotton gins 0 0 0 0 3 0 3

Dairy 0 1 1 1 8 1 8

Fruits, vegetables, & nuts 0 0 0 0 4 1 4

Livestock, poultry, and wool 0 0 0 0 5 1 5

Other marketing1 0 0 1 0 9 3 9

Service 0 0 1 0 4 1 5

Grain & oilseed 2 0 0 0 16 10 16

Farm supply 3 2 3 0 32 16 33

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Total 5 3 6 1 81 33 83

1 Other marketing cooperatives are comprised of : Tobacco, 1; Biofuels, 2; Rice, 1; Sugar, 2; Fish, 2; and Other marketing, 1.

27
Appendix Table 13—Source of borrowed funds by number of respondents, by cooperative size and type, 2008

Small Commodity

Total asset Bonds Farm Equip- Business Industrial Certifi- Credit Another

size and Commercial and Credit Grain ment Admin- revenue cates of Corp- co-op orcooperative type CoBank Banks notes System contracts dealers istration bonds debt oration subsidiary Other Total

Number

< $1 million 2 29 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 2 107

$1 mill. to $2.49 mill. 15 61 11 9 0 13 7 0 1 0 7 5 152

$2.5 mill. to $4.99 mill. 38 66 12 10 2 19 13 0 0 0 13 12 178

$5 mill. to $9.99 mill. 65 69 24 17 0 23 18 0 1 0 21 24 203

$10 mill. to $19.99 mill. 87 65 32 18 7 34 14 2 1 0 26 25 200$20 mill. to $49.99 mill. 88 43 41 21 6 27 9 2 1 1 36 20 161

≥ $50 million 115 48 57 10 5 30 7 8 3 7 21 47 163

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Total 410 381 178 87 20 147 70 12 7 8 126 135 1,164Cotton and cotton gin 14 33 4 13 0 10 10 0 0 3 3 7 68Dairy 9 19 7 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 6 59Fruit, vegetable, and nut 14 21 8 9 0 5 0 1 0 0 1 7 60Livestock, poultry, & wool 4 3 3 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 23Other marketing1 13 17 8 0 0 2 0 1 0 4 2 4 40

Service 5 9 4 1 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 2 42Grain and oilseed 185 109 78 32 19 57 40 3 5 1 45 61 362Farm supply 166 170 66 31 1 65 20 2 2 0 74 48 510

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Total 410 381 178 87 20 147 70 12 7 8 126 135 1,164

1 Other marketing cooperatives are comprised of: Tobacco, 3; Dry beans and peas, 6; Rice, 3; Sugar, 10; Fish, 10; and Other marketing, 8.

28
Appendix Table 14—Source of borrowed funds percentage for grain and oilseed cooperatives, 2008

Small Commodity

Bonds Farm Equip- Business Industrial Certifi- Credit Another

Commercial and Credit Grain ment Admin- revenue cates of Corp- co-op or

Asset size CoBank Banks notes System contracts dealers istration bonds debt oration subsidiary Other Total

Percent

< $1 million 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

$1 mill. to $2.49 mill. 29.41 54.58 4.47 4.07 0.00 2.11 5.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

$2.5 mill. to $4.99 mill. 18.25 38.77 0.53 1.07 6.65 5.66 5.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.11 21.47 100.00

$5 mill. to $9.99 mill. 63.29 17.55 2.79 0.48 0.00 1.66 2.13 0.00 0.37 0.00 3.86 7.88 100.00

$10 mill. to $19.99 mill. 59.95 22.26 1.60 1.30 1.39 2.13 0.89 0.03 0.00 0.00 6.70 3.75 100.00

$20 mill. to $49.99 mill. 60.21 17.19 1.86 4.62 0.51 1.88 0.31 0.27 0.15 0.18 12.61 0.20 100.00

≥ $50 million 83.97 8.15 1.78 0.44 0.45 1.42 0.04 0.06 0.17 0.00 1.05 2.47 100.00

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Weighted average 77.98 10.83 1.80 1.17 0.53 1.56 0.20 0.09 0.16 0.03 3.32 2.34 100.00

< $1 million 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

$1 mill. to $2.49 mill. 5 13 3 2 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 33

$2.5 mill. to $4.99 mill. 7 9 2 2 2 3 2 0 0 0 3 4 31

$5 mill. to $9.99 mill. 25 19 9 4 0 4 10 0 1 0 4 6 57

$10 mill. to $19.99 mill. 46 33 16 6 7 17 8 1 0 0 10 15 90$20 mill. to $49.99 mill. 48 19 22 12 6 15 8 1 1 1 17 9 79

≥ $50 million 54 14 26 6 4 16 7 1 3 0 11 27 67

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Total 185 109 78 32 19 57 40 3 5 1 45 61 362

29
Appendix Table 15—Source of borrowed funds percentage for farm supply cooperatives, 2008

Small Commodity

Bonds Farm Equip- Business Industrial Certifi- Credit Another

Commercial and Credit Grain ment Admin- revenue cates of Corp- co-op or

Asset size CoBank Banks notes System contracts dealers istration bonds debt oration subsidiary Other Total

Percent

< $1 million 2.23 65.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.83 28.25 100.00

$1 mill. to $2.49 mill. 13.20 62.53 5.78 4.74 0.00 2.65 0.07 0.00 0.09 0.00 10.18 0.75 100.00

$2.5 mill. to $4.99 mill. 32.83 42.06 1.35 8.73 0.00 0.86 3.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.21 0.80 100.00

$5 mill. to $9.99 mill. 40.55 30.60 2.90 5.61 0.00 2.01 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.35 7.14 100.00

$10 mill. to $19.99 mill. 50.98 27.94 4.12 3.35 0.00 0.38 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.61 2.15 100.00

$20 mill. to $49.99 mill. 55.54 20.59 1.38 0.58 0.00 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.21 0.26 100.00

≥ $50 million 68.13 11.93 6.56 0.57 0.01 3.69 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 7.14 1.62 100.00

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Weighted average 63.16 15.83 5.42 1.12 0.01 3.00 0.12 0.25 0.00 0.00 9.43 1.67 100.00

Number

< $1 million 1 11 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 32

$1 mill. to $2.49 mill. 8 37 4 3 0 8 1 0 1 0 6 2 78

$2.5 mill. to $4.99 mill. 27 38 9 5 0 11 7 0 0 0 9 4 101

$5 mill. to $9.99 mill. 31 32 11 8 0 16 6 0 0 0 16 15 108

$10 mill. to $19.99 mill. 35 27 11 7 0 11 5 0 1 0 14 8 84

$20 mill. to $49.99 mill. 31 15 14 6 0 10 0 0 0 0 17 5 61

≥ $50 million 33 10 17 2 1 9 0 2 0 0 10 12 46

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Total 166 170 66 31 1 65 20 2 2 0 74 48 510

30
Appendix Table 16—Source of borrowed funds by State, 2008

Small Commodity

Bonds Farm Equip- Business Industrial Certifi- Credit Another

Region and Commercial and Credit Grain ment Admin- revenue cates of Corp- co-op orState CoBank Banks notes System contracts dealers istration bonds debt oration subsidiary Other

Percent

NortheastMaine 76.82 10.51 2.91 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.28 0.00

New York

MassachusettsNew Jersey 82.68 0.16 1.86 0.21 0.00 1.66 0.00 13.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pennsylvania 91.95 8.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Southeast

Alabama 0.00 26.93 1.66 0.00 0.00 63.87 0.16 4.37 0.02 0.00 2.97 0.01

Florida, Georgia 10.93 82.29 2.40 1.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.40 0.59

Kentucky 86.06 0.28 5.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.38

Maryland 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00North Carolina 0.00 87.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.72 0.00 0.00Tennessee 65.58 11.40 8.83 0.42 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.74Virginia 46.24 0.79 49.19 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.64 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00Lake States

Michigan 6.62 48.03 23.39 0.40 0.00 0.36 0.00 1.02 0.00 18.94 0.51 0.72Minnesota 40.89 19.69 27.39 0.33 0.00 0.25 0.11 2.86 0.00 1.50 4.44 2.53Wisconsin 59.00 22.56 0.65 0.01 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.00 15.22 1.16Corn BeltIowa 89.34 4.38 0.31 0.22 0.02 2.37 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 2.83 0.43Illinois 72.50 15.42 0.20 0.69 0.00 5.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 5.24Indiana 94.84 4.36 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13Missouri 68.60 3.93 17.45 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 8.05 1.40Ohio 90.13 7.73 1.60 0.08 0.00 0.44 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00South CentralArkansas 90.33 2.12 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.76 0.32 0.00Louisiana 60.98 36.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 1.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36Mississippi 8.66 62.26 0.00 28.63 0.00 0.06 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.12Oklahoma 70.86 1.84 3.55 19.63 0.00 0.28 3.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61Texas 31.17 6.56 7.50 2.70 0.28 0.11 0.87 0.00 0.00 47.39 3.35 0.07Northern PlainsKansas 80.00 8.88 2.35 0.05 2.26 0.41 0.23 0.31 0.65 0.00 3.07 1.77Nebraska 89.83 4.31 0.40 0.21 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 3.83 0.99

31
Appendix Table 16—Source of borrowed funds by State, 2008 (Continued)

Small Commodity

Bonds Farm Equip- Business Industrial Certifi- Credit Another

Region and Commercial and Credit Grain ment Admin- revenue cates of Corp- co-op orState CoBank Banks notes System contracts dealers istration bonds debt oration subsidiary Other

Percent

North Dakota 35.12 15.45 1.33 16.63 0.04 0.56 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.62 0.29

South Dakota 62.39 6.13 1.67 1.33 3.52 1.05 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.30 14.76

Mountain

Colorado 20.72 57.27 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.71 3.07

Idaho 4.40 60.58 0.39 2.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.54 0.00 0.01

Montana 0.00 14.00 1.50 3.32 0.00 0.14 1.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 73.65 5.74

Utah 93.41 6.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Wyoming 0.00 48.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.97 0.00

Pacific

California,

Arizona,

New Mexico 30.64 35.90 18.49 2.49 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.49 0.00 0.89

Hawaii 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Oregon 56.57 9.52 1.54 3.80 0.70 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.79 22.31Washington 8.03 54.94 8.96 13.54 0.00 0.65 0.00 1.58 0.00 0.00 11.38 0.92

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Weighted average 61.51 16.14 7.58 2.09 0.24 1.49 0.15 0.93 0.07 3.81 3.76 2.24

32
Appendix Table 17—Source of borrowed funds by number of respondents and State, 2008

Small Commodity

Bonds Farm Equip- Business Industrial Certifi- Credit Another

Region and Commercial and Credit Grain ment Admin- revenue cates of Corp- co-op orState CoBank Banks notes System contracts dealers istration bonds debt oration subsidiary Other Total

Number

NortheastMaine 1 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 10New York

MassachusettsNew Jersey 5 3 1 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 22

Pennsylvania 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14Southeast

Alabama 0 2 3 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 6 1 13Florida, Georgia 2 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 15Kentucky 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4

Maryland 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4North Carolina 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3Tennessee 11 4 8 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 21Virginia 6 3 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 10Lake StatesMichigan 4 14 6 4 0 6 0 1 0 1 2 5 26Minnesota 37 46 24 8 0 12 10 1 0 1 26 29 129Wisconsin 18 28 10 2 0 8 0 1 0 0 8 13 68Corn Belt

Iowa 51 17 14 4 1 11 0 1 0 0 9 10 79Illinois 44 19 11 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 6 78Indiana 12 4 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 19Missouri 13 14 13 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 3 5 40Ohio 20 13 8 2 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 31South CentralArkansas 7 4 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 13Louisiana 5 5 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 13Mississippi 1 8 0 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 16Oklahoma 17 4 4 5 0 4 11 0 0 0 0 3 32Texas 23 39 11 14 1 12 18 0 0 2 7 5 89Northern PlainsKansas 47 12 20 2 15 18 5 2 3 0 12 18 67Nebraska 23 8 7 4 0 9 0 0 2 0 5 11 41

33
Appendix Table 17—Source of borrowed funds by number of respondents and State, 2008 (Continued)

Small Commodity

Bonds Farm Equip- Business Industrial Certifi- Credit Another

Region and Commercial and Credit Grain ment Admin- revenue cates of Corp- co-op orState CoBank Banks notes System contracts dealers istration bonds debt oration subsidiary Other Total

Number

North Dakota 24 36 9 8 1 5 12 0 0 0 13 7 101South Dakota 7 21 4 6 1 10 7 0 0 0 15 4 51MountainColorado 7 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 16Idaho 2 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 9

Montana 0 9 1 3 0 3 2 0 0 0 4 3 22Utah 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6Wyoming 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4Pacific

California,

Arizona,

New Mexico 10 17 7 6 0 9 0 0 0 1 0 1 46

Hawaii 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

Oregon 4 7 3 2 1 4 0 0 0 0 2 2 16Washington 4 10 2 4 0 6 0 1 0 0 5 2 33

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Total 410 381 178 87 20 147 70 12 7 8 126 135 1,164

34
Appendix Table 18—Common-size balance sheet by cooperative size, 2008

__________________________________________________________________Asset sizes___________________________________________________________

$1 million to $2.5 million to $5 million to $10 million to $20 million to

Balance sheet item < $1 million $2.49 million $4.99 million $9.99 million $19.99 million $49.99 million ≥ $50 million All

Percent of total assets

Current assets 63.86 61.24 58.92 62.09 65.38 67.24 66.40 66.17

Other assets 4.53 1.31 2.29 2.06 2.70 3.19 10.33 8 .68PP&E1 (net) 19.45 21.44 23.18 22.44 20.24 20.19 19.02 19.40

Investments 12.15 16.00 15.60 13.41 11.67 9.38 4.24 5.75

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Total assets 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Current liabilities 29.57 32.55 36.05 44.34 54.40 55.12 53.38 52.97

Long-term liabilities 4.28 6.19 8.01 6.80 5.11 9.45 17.65 15.48

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Total liabilities 33.85 38.74 44.07 51.14 59.52 64.57 71.03 68.45

Allocated equity 46.41 39.85 37.55 30.54 24.88 20.16 20.52 21.41

Retained earnings 18.74 21.41 18.38 18.31 15.60 15.27 8.45 10.14

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Total equity 66.15 61.26 55.93 48.86 40.48 35.43 28.97 31.55

Total equity and liabilities 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

1 Property, plant, and equipment.

35
Appendix Table 19—Common-size balance sheet by cooperative type, 2008

 Cooperative type 

Cotton and Fruit, vegetable Livestock, wool, Other Grain and

Balance sheet item cotton gin Dairy and nut and poultry marketing Service oilseed Farm supply All

Percent of total assets

Current assets 78.61 59.46 60.21 75.51 53.81 51.64 75.04 66.51 66.17

Other assets 2.27 20.49 8.07 0.98 9.30 9.58 3.33 6.42 8.68PP&E1 (net) 16.10 18.69 29.31 21.06 34.65 35.81 15.15 15.79 19.40

Investments 3.02 1.35 2.40 2.46 2.24 2.97 6.48 11.28 5.75

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Total assets 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Current liabilities 49.60 50.38 42.25 58.10 38.24 28.75 65.61 50.85 52.97

Long-term liabilities 20.72 23.98 23.92 12.25 20.63 12.00 9.68 10.49 15.48

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Total Liabilities 70.31 74.36 66.17 70.34 58.86 40.75 75.29 61.35 68.45

Allocated equity 22.44 25.40 21.16 20.81 30.59 42.86 13.85 22.04 21.41

Retained earnings 7.25 0.24 12.65 8.84 10.55 16.39 10.87 16.62 10.14

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Total equity 29.69 25.64 33.83 29.66 41.14 59.25 24.71 38.65 31.55

Total equity and liabilities 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 

1 Property, plant, and equipment.

36
Appendix Table 20—Common-size income statement by cooperative size, 2008

 Asset sizes 

$1 million to $2.5 million to $5 million to $10 million to $20 million to

Income statement item < $1 million $2.49 million $4.99 million $9.99 million $19.99 million $49.99 million ≥ $50 million All

Percent of total assets

Total sales 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Cost of goods sold 92.67 90.33 89.12 90.39 89.84 90.17 90.10 90.10

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Gross margin 7.33 9.67 10.88 9.61 10.16 9.83 9.90 9.90

Service and other income 6.36 4.09 5.09 4.54 2.90 2.40 1.38 1.78

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Gross revenue 13.69 13.76 15.97 14.14 13.06 12.23 11.28 11.68

ExpensesWages 4.92 5.90 6.46 5.19 4.90 4.37 4.20 4.34

Depreciation 0.90 0.93 1.24 1.12 1.08 1.04 0.87 0.91

Interest 0.29 0.34 0.45 0.56 0.75 0.96 0.84 0.83

Other expenses 6.24 5.17 5.80 5.03 4.41 4.33 3.29 3.59

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Total expenses 12.35 12.34 13.95 11.91 11.14 10.70 9.20 9.67

Net operating margins 1.33 1.41 2.02 2.23 1.92 1.53 2.08 2.01

Patronage income 0.49 1.26 1.82 1.48 1.36 1.05 0.42 0.61

Non-operating income 0.32 0.28 0.62 0.33 0.58 0.71 0.57 0.58

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Net income before taxes 2.14 2.95 4.46 4.04 3.86 3.30 3.07 3.19

Taxes 0.06 0.14 0.30 0.33 0.36 0.47 0.31 0.33

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Net income 2.08 2.81 4.16 3.71 3.50 2.83 2.76 2.87

37
Appendix Table 21—Common-size income statement by cooperative type1, 2008

 Cooperative type 

Cotton and Fruit, vegetable Livestock, wool, Other Grain and

Income statement item cotton gin Dairy and nut and poultry marketing oilseed Farm supply All

Percent of total assets

Total sales 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00Cost of goods sold 88.18 92.67 74.75 95.49 82.48 93.25 89.93 90.10

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Gross margin 11.82 7.33 25.25 4.51 17.52 6.75 10.07 9.90

Service and other income 5.79 0.15 2.95 1.24 1.55 2.57 1.68 1.78

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Gross revenue 17.61 7.47 28.20 5.75 19.06 9.32 11.76 11.68

ExpensesWages 3.54 3.77 9.34 2.50 5.91 3.04 4.49 4.34

Depreciation 0.90 0.59 1.67 0.41 1.95 0.88 0.84 0.91

Interest 1.52 0.45 0.89 0.51 0.97 1.30 0.69 0.83

Other expenses 5.81 1.74 8.35 2.01 7.50 2.85 3.70 3.59

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Total expenses 11.77 6.54 20.25 5.43 16.34 8.07 9.72 9.67

Net operating margins 5.84 0.93 7.95 0.33 2.73 1.25 2.04 2.01

Patronage income 0.56 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.83 1.36 0.61

Non-operating income 0.50 0.29 0.45 -0.02 0.38 0.67 0.92 0.58

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Net income before taxes 6.90 1.26 8.47 0.35 3.16 2.74 4.32 3.19

Taxes 0.11 0.08 0.20 -0.18 0.19 0.33 0.70 0.33

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Net income 6.79 1.18 8.28 0.53 2.97 2.41 3.62 2.87

1 Service cooperatives typically have little or no sales so information on service cooperatives is not presented in this table.

38
39
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Rural Business–Cooperative Service

Stop 3250

Washington, D.C. 20250-3250

The Rural Business–Cooperative Service (RBS) provides

research, management, and educational assistance to

cooperatives to strengthen the economic position of farmers

and other rural residents. It works directly with cooperative

leaders and Federal and State agencies to improve

organization, leadership, and operation of cooperatives and to

give guidance to further development.

The cooperative segment of RBS (1) helps farmers and other

rural residents develop cooperatives to obtain supplies and

services at lower cost and to get better prices for products they

sell; (2) advises rural residents on developing existing

resources through cooperative action to enhance rural living;

(3) helps cooperatives improve services and operating

efficiency; (4) informs members, directors, employees, and the

public on how cooperatives work and benefit their members

and their communities; and (5) encourages international

cooperative programs. RBS also publishes research and

educational materials and issues Rural Cooperatives magazine.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits

discrimination in all of its programs and activities on the basis

of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where

applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status,

religion, sexual orientation, political beliefs, genetic

information, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's

income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all

prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with

disabilities who require alternative means for communication

of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.)

should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600

(voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Assistant

Secretary for Civil Rights, Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Stop 9410,

Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call toll-free at (866) 632-9992

(English) or (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 (English

Federal-relay) or (800) 845-6136 (Spanish Federal-relay).

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.